STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. R. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State represented by the Public Prosecutor has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the order of acquittal passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The Food Inspector, Kumbakonam Municipality, tiled a complaint against the respondent under Ss. 7(1), 16(1)(a)(i) read with S. 2(la)(a)(m) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 28th November, 1931, at about 7:30 a.m. when the Food Inspector was proceeding along the Pidarikulam road, he noticed the accused seeing milk from the brass vessel tied in cycle carrier. After, enquiring the accused, be was satisfied that the milk was intended for sale and purchased 750 ml. for Rs. 1.25 and obtained a receipt from the accused. He divided the same into three parts and poured them into three separate bottles which were dry and clean and tightly packed them as per rules. He sent one of the bottles to the Public Analyst, Madras. On receipt of the report from the Public Analyst which is to the effect that the sample is deficient in solids not fat to the extent of at least 44 per cent, the Food Inspector filed a complaint and served notice under S. 13(2) of the Act on the accused. One Thangavelu was present at the time of purchase of the milk and also preparation of mahazar and other documents. He attested the documents. In support of the above allegations, besides the Food Inspector examined as P.W. 1 the mahazar witness Thangavelu was examined as P.W. 2 and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked.

(3.) THE Magistrate for the reasons assigned in his judgment acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the provision of S. 10(7) of the Act has not been complied with. Aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred this appeal.